Author
Topic: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion (Read 323621 times)

It seems more likely that Elon just misspoke. Forging that shape seems extremely unrealistic, unless he is just talking about machining it from a forged billet (which would certainly be possible but would result in a lot of wasted material). Is there any evidence other than that second hand quote that they are forged and not cast?

The other option is that SX expected to need a forged fin but had a cast/cut one set made up in order to get flight data.

However if the cast/cut set design performed well enough they might have decided "actually a cast/cut design is good enough. The weights OK and quality looks good, and they got them to our door fast"

Historically Forging has been the way to make highly stressed high quality parts but modern casting quality has got a great deal better. The key parameter is the "casting factor," the allowance you have to make in weight for a cast part to have the same strength and rigidity properties of a machined or forged part.

The gear box casing on the Black Arrow LV had a CF of 1.7 IOW it was 1.7x heavier (Aluminum)than a machined or forged version (but a very great deal cheaper).

By the 00's Airbus were accepting (smallish) Titanium cast parts with CF's of 1.0-1.1.

It's been a decades long process but precision casting methods can do high precision casting in highly reactive metals (and molten Titanium is highly reactive) using die casting or lost wax/plastic methods, usually using vacuum melting and vacuum casting to eliminate dissolved gases and ceramic bag dross filters to eliminate inclusions.

Which is good because Ti is a PITA to machine.

So it could just be the SX mfg team were being cautious and the rapid prototyping process has become the new baseline.

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

It seems more likely that Elon just misspoke. Forging that shape seems extremely unrealistic, unless he is just talking about machining it from a forged billet (which would certainly be possible but would result in a lot of wasted material).

Musk knows about metal working, so I think it's unlikely he misspoke.

And it's a rare stamped or forged part that doesn't need some clean up, and Musk never said no secondary machining wouldn't be required.

Also, keep in mind that a forging doesn't have to be done in one press. It can be done with a number of successive (i.e. progressive) dies, with the final one being close to the net part.

For example, a grid fin looks similar to a waffle, so there could be a number of successive dies that take a flat plate of titanium and progressively thin out the areas that are the holes, and shape the rest of the material into the grids. Then the "flash", or leftover material is machined out.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Although [10 reflights without refurb] is the design goal; they may not hit it with the first iteration [of Block 5].

That's almost besides the point. Even if Block 5 falls 50-70% short of the goal of 10 reflights without refurb, it would be absolutely paradigm-shifting. Remember, 10 flights sans refurb doesn't mention the more important goal, 100 flights with regular refurbishment. If a single booster is capable of flying even 10 times only with serious refurbishment after each recovery, it magnifies SpaceX's fleet by a factor of 10.

With 10 reflights per life and 6 weeks to refurb after each flight (worst-case realistic scenario), four boosters could conduct biweekly launches for 20 months. Three boosters could theoretically maintain a biweekly cadence for 15 months in the same conditions, but there is literally zero margin there for refurb delays.

At a more realistic present-day pace of manufacturing (10-20 Block 5 F9s per year) and with assumptions that Block 5 will manage at least 50% of its reuse goals (5 flights without refurb and 50 flights per booster), it is actually hard to fathom how significant a change it would be. The expendability paradigm is blinding, to say the least. The next focus, of course, will be cost and thus total reusability; BFR.

And, is V5 just a typo? Or do we have yet another Falcon versioning scheme?

Itís not a typo, heís just not rigorous when it comes to naming things consistently.

Could be a typo given that "v" and "b" are right next to each other on the average keyboard. But I agree that V(ersion) 5 does not differ from B(lock) 5 all that much. They both indicate the fifth major iteration of the Falcon 9 design.

Itís not a typo, heís just not rigorous when it comes to naming things consistently.

Yup.

Falcon 9Falcon 9 v1.1Falcon 9 Full Thrust (or Falcon 9 v1.2 according to the paperwork)...um, did "Block 4" ever get a name from Elon?Falcon 9 Block 5, er Falcon 9 Version 5

Anyway, Block / Version 5 is going to be the final incarnation of F9 so we won't have to worry about the naming strategy shortly... Well, until Elon changes his mind and we're onto F9 v6, Block 6, F9 v2.0 or whatever.

Itís not a typo, heís just not rigorous when it comes to naming things consistently.

Yup.

Falcon 9Falcon 9 v1.1Falcon 9 Full Thrust (or Falcon 9 v1.2 according to the paperwork)...um, did "Block 4" ever get a name from Elon?Falcon 9 Block 5, er Falcon 9 Version 5

Anyway, Block / Version 5 is going to be the final incarnation of F9 so we won't have to worry about the naming strategy shortly... Well, until Elon changes his mind and we're onto F9 v6, Block 6, F9 v2.0 or whatever.

Falcon 9Falcon 9 v1.1Falcon 9 Full Thrust (or Falcon 9 v1.2 according to the paperwork)...um, did "Block 4" ever get a name from Elon?Falcon 9 Block 5, er Falcon 9 Version 5

Anyway, Block / Version 5 is going to be the final incarnation of F9 so we won't have to worry about the naming strategy shortly... Well, until Elon changes his mind and we're onto F9 v6, Block 6, F9 v2.0 or whatever.

AFAIK the plan is F9 V 5 --> BFS for everything.

However there might need to be some "transitional arrangement" if BFS IOC is delayed.

Now what are the chances of that happening?

Logged

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Falcon 9Falcon 9 v1.1Falcon 9 Full Thrust (or Falcon 9 v1.2 according to the paperwork)...um, did "Block 4" ever get a name from Elon?Falcon 9 Block 5, er Falcon 9 Version 5

Anyway, Block / Version 5 is going to be the final incarnation of F9 so we won't have to worry about the naming strategy shortly... Well, until Elon changes his mind and we're onto F9 v6, Block 6, F9 v2.0 or whatever.

AFAIK the plan is F9 V 5 --> BFS for everything.

However there might need to be some "transitional arrangement" if BFS IOC is delayed.

Now what are the chances of that happening?

I'm sure there will be improvements in almost every area as the blocks 5's start flying. Whether they will be enough to claim block 6? Who knows, depends how many they want!

Itís not a typo, heís just not rigorous when it comes to naming things consistently.

Yup.

Falcon 9Falcon 9 v1.1Falcon 9 Full Thrust (or Falcon 9 v1.2 according to the paperwork)...um, did "Block 4" ever get a name from Elon?Falcon 9 Block 5, er Falcon 9 Version 5

Anyway, Block / Version 5 is going to be the final incarnation of F9 so we won't have to worry about the naming strategy shortly... Well, until Elon changes his mind and we're onto F9 v6, Block 6, F9 v2.0 or whatever.

Block 4 is not unofficial, nor was it assigned by NSF or any other fan group. Falcon 9 v1.2 has flown four (soon to be five) design revisions called Blocks, and employees have referred to them as such for a while internally.

My understanding was that the most recent 4 flown new cores were 'Block 4', which was the fourth in a sequence that ran F9 1.0 / F9 1.1 / F9 1.2 / F9 Block 4 - and will continue with F9 Block 5?

Everything since 1019 has been F9 v1.2 Block 1, 2, or 3; everything since 1039 has been F9 v1.2 Block 4. Honestly it doesn't even matter that much because without people obsessively tracking this stuff, it's unlikely anyone would've noticed the differences between any of the F9 v1.2 Blocks.

The only one that really matters is Block 5, and we'll definitely be able to tell when it shows up in McGregor.

Recently, I've created an online spreadsheet matching flights of F9 v1.2 boosters to blocks. I cannot assure it's all correct, you can find links to all the sources I've found directly in the spreadsheet.

Recently, I've created an online spreadsheet matching flights of F9 v1.2 boosters to blocks. I cannot assure it's all correct, you can find links to all the sources I've found directly in the spreadsheet.